FOXNEWS: Pro-Gun Dems May Get a Boost

This is a discussion on FOXNEWS: Pro-Gun Dems May Get a Boost within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Mods&Admins, I am hoping that this doesn't degrade into a political bashing thread, but thought that it was an interesting and pertinent read.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...y-get-a-boost/
With ...

FOXNEWS: Pro-Gun Dems May Get a Boost

With the mid-terms looming large in a year where incumbents are expected to take a beating at the polls many Democratic candidates are favoring gun rights, aiming to win endorsements or positive ratings from pro-2nd amendment groups.

University of New Hampshire Professor of Politics, Andrew Smith, says Democrats started moving away from a strong anti-gun stance in the 90's when many in the party blamed the issue on massive political losses in Congress.

"I think it started with the 1994 elections where a lot of Democrats believe it was the NRA involvement in that election which caused the Democrats to lose the House and the Senate. So they backed off that issue," said Smith.

The National Rifle Association, by far the most powerful pro-gun lobby in the country, spends massive amounts of money to protect the right to bear arms, donating cash to candidates and political action committees. While Republicans receive the majority of the organizations endorsements and money, over the last 10 years, the NRA has dramatically increased funding for Democratic candidates.

"I think finally the message hit home that it's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment at election time and I think you see that reflective in what's been happening on this issue amongst Democrats in Washington, DC and state legislatures around the country." said Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association.

"Gun ownership in the country amid labor unions folks runs from a low of 48% in California to a high of 60, 70, 80% in states like Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia. In the 2000 election, half of those union members had a firearm in their home voted for George Bush over Al Gore based on the gun issue and that cost Al Gore the presidency."

According to the center for responsive politics, a non-partisan group that tracks political spending, during the 2002 election cycle the NRA put 8% of their federal campaign contributions toward Democrats. This election cycle, they've received 26% percent.

Though the NRA has yet to release many key endorsements heading into the fall elections some major races could be affected when the word comes down. In the midst of a tough re-election campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could get a boost as the NRA considers endorsing him.
In Indiana, Democratic Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth, a former sheriff, may win the organization's endorsement over Republican Dan Coats.

The slow political shift has frustrated some Democrats that have long fought for tougher gun laws, like New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who's husband was killed in 1993 when a gunman randomly fired into a commuter train. She wishes fellow Democrats would fight the pressure exerted by the pro-gun lobby.

"They've been very open about saying... 'Carolyn, if the NRA comes against a bill, I gotta vote with the NRA.' They're not going to take that chance. I understand that," said McCarthy of her Democratic colleagues. "Does it bother me? Of course, it bothers me because I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to own a gun."

Depending on where a given candidate hails from, gun rights can be a major issue.

Take the "Live Free or Die" state of New Hampshire where hunting is popular and the 2nd amendment has long been prioritized as a critical personal liberty.

"It's a freedom issue and that's what this is about," said Mitch Kopacz, president of Gun Owners of New Hampshire. "It's the canary in the cage if you will, the firearms... for free speech and other issues. If we have firearms we still have the rest of our rights."

While a contingent of voters will cast ballots strictly adhering to which candidate supports firearm freedoms, many others will prioritize other matters.

"Because the economy is bad and when the economy is bad all other issues get pushed to the side, including the issues about guns," explains Smith. "So I think what you're seeing with Democratic candidates is that the party has moved away from that more doctrinaire position against 2nd amendment rights."

The problem I have with a candidate proclaiming to be all about the 2nd amendment etcetera is when their past record shows exactly the opposite.you either stand for something,or you will fall for everything,my vote will go for the best candidate that has protecting our rights under the constitution and protecting our country from all enemys foreign and domestic

McCarthy most definitely wants to take away your right to own a gun. If you read the AWB she proposed for 2007 that will be crystal clear. As long as people like her, who blatantly ignore their oath of office like that, are allowed to stay in congress, this will continue to be a big issue. I agree with DaveH, they need to be able to pass a rigorous test like he described and then stick to their answers before they deserve ANY support.

I'm glad to see stories like this getting covered but I honestly think it will make no difference. The brady campaign has done such a fantastic job of brainwashing my conservative/rep gun owning brethren that all liberals/dems are anti gun I doubt their minds will ever be changed. I hate the brady campaign with a passion but I have to admit their strategy is leaps and bounds better then anything our side has been able to turn out.

I'm more of a I need to "see actions than hear words" kind of guy myself. I think some of it may just be posturing in an attempt to get votes, which if it is won't be the first time. But I also think that there are some of the more moderate democrats who actually do support 2A and don't want to take out guns away.

I wish the national RKBA groups would use an approach something like the VCDL PAC does for State elections here in Virginia.

1) send a detailed questionnaire of hard questions to be answered -- I will vote for xxxx or I will not vote for xxxx.

2) No reply = no endorsement -- no matter what you say in ads, past voting record, etc.

3) Qualified answers = anti-RKBA.

4) No exceptions.

All kind of politicians say they support 2A. They mean their version of 2A. We need to pin them down on the details -- as the "devil is in the details."

I don't give a what letter is behind their name -- R, D, L, I, G, etc. It's the details that matter, IMHO.

^ Great idea
Politicians are way too good at telling everyone one thing and then turning around and doing the opposite. We need to look at their actions and not just hope that what they are saying is the truth.
We need to find politicians that will completely defend the 2A not just when it benefits them. Being pro 2A should not be a part time commitment; actually that should be true of all the issues.

^ Great idea
Politicians are way too good at telling everyone one thing and then turning around and doing the opposite. We need to look at their actions and not just hope that what they are saying is the truth.
We need to find politicians that will completely defend the 2A not just when it benefits them. Being pro 2A should not be a part time commitment; actually that should be true of all the issues.

And the VCDL holds them accountable. The survey is just a tool to determine support--it does not guarantee support. Of course, looking at someone's record over time does determine their true support of the 2A. You can fool VCDL once...but not twice!

If they want the votes, the they need to get in the NRA's pocket.
Now, what'll happen after they win the elections (this is hypothetical of course.......most are/were elected without the backing of the NRA before)? Will they shed the NRA and vote 'anti' once they secure thier seat?

A search of thier voting history is the best way to make a 'guesstimation'. Just my take on it.